After the Donald Trump administration suffered a major legal rebuke this week from the Supreme Court of the United States — which struck down the legal basis for his sweeping global tariff program — Trump didn’t retreat. Instead, he raised tariffs anyway, setting off new uncertainty for the U.S. economy and global trade.
On Friday, the high court ruled that Trump lacked statutory authority to impose broad global duties under emergency trade powers. In response, Trump blasted the decision on his social platform, calling it “wrong” and “anti-American,” and criticized the justices by name. He said the ruling would harm U.S. workers and protect foreign competitors.
Rather than accept the ruling’s limitations, Trump moved swiftly to preserve his tariff agenda using other legal tools. Within hours, his administration invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a statute that allows for temporary tariffs, to impose a 10% global tariff on most imported goods. He then boosted that tariff to 15%, the maximum allowed under the statute, posting that the hike was a direct response to what he called the court’s “anti-American” stance.
Critics say the maneuver illustrates Trump’s willingness to find workarounds when legal checks rebuff his policy preferences. Supporters, meanwhile, framed the tariff escalation as a sign of strength: a president standing up to global competitors and domestic institutions they see as unsupportive of American industry.
Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.
Economists warn the inflationary risks of higher import taxes, which can raise consumer prices and disrupt supply chains, but Trump’s political base has celebrated the move as fulfilling a long-standing promise to protect American workers from foreign competition.
What began as a legal loss has quickly turned into a policy escalation, underscoring how Trump’s approach to governance often treats legal setbacks as stepping stones rather than exits.
